Hillary Clinton in a recent interview when asked if she would hand over notes during her time as Secretary of State and about what happened in Benghazi, said if they (the select committee) wanted to see the notes and they can “read it in thebook.” In the next breath she said she said, she wants to “see whether this is on the level or not, because that really matters to me. I don’t want to be a part of something that in any way politicizes or demeans the sacrifice that we saw happen there.”

Hillary Clinton has always had a lot of nerve, but this really takes the cake. Especially with recent things coming out about Benghazi. It was reported on the 11th that “the terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 used cell phones, seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation.”

According to FOX’s Bret Baier and James Rosen, Eric Stahl who recently retired as a major in the U.S. Air Force, “said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.””

Stahl told Bret Baier:

“Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.” Stahl served as commander and pilot of the aircraft that was used to transport the bodies of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – as well as survivors from Tripoli to an American military base in Germany.”

A separate U.S. official confirmed the Stahl’s claims.

Major Stahl was never interviewed by the Accountability Review Board. I reported in April about Thomas Pickering, who is a good friend of Hillary Clinton. It was Pickering along with former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen who headed up the Committee which investigated the State Departments’ role during the time leading up to the Benghazi attack. According to an article in Front Page, it was Clinton who installed Pickering as head of the Committee. This would clearly be considered a conflict of interest if it happened under any other administration, especially considering that while the panel found “Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place”, Clinton herself was never held accountable.

Eric Stahl revealed that given his crew’s alert status and location, “they could have reached Benghazi in time to have played a role in rescuing the victims of the assault, and ferrying them to safety in Germany, had they been asked to do so. “You would’ve thought that we would have had a little bit more of an alert posture on 9/11… A hurried-up timeline probably would take us [an] hour-and-a-half to get off the ground and three hours and fifteen minutes to get down there. So we could’ve gone down there and gotten them easily.””

This is more evidence which proves that the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over the video.

Speaking of the video, Walid Shoebat recently claimed that Hillary Clinton conspired with Obama to end criticism of Islam with an attack on the first amendment. Remember nearly right from the start Obama and Hillary insisted they had “nothing to do with” the video, but it may be proven, they did play a part.

Shoebat explains in a detailed account about video creator Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who was taken into custody after the Benghazi attack. Nakoula “was acting deceptively while also pushing the agenda of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the group’s “Istanbul Process”, a series of meetings designed to create the climate for non-Muslim governments to enact laws that make criticism of Islam a criminal offense, and the Obama administration itself was on board with this agenda.”

Back in February, in my first in a series of three articles on Islam in America, I wrote about Hillary Clinton’s speech given at in Turkey, to the OIC which is funded by dozens of Muslim countries that systematically persecute Christians and Jews. The OIC is basically an organization, which acts as a lobbying tool to pressure Western governments to outlaw all forms of “Islamophobia”.

According to the OIC’s annual Islamophobia report, in the first chapter they state,

“This discrimination and hatred towards Muslims, or perceived Muslims, continued to manifest itself during the period under review in different forms including through mounting intolerance, explicit and open rejection of Muslim identity signs such as increased opposition to the building of Mosques and other Islamic centers as well as direct attacks against Islamic buildings and cemeteries as well as physical assaults against Muslims…”

Back to Clinton’s speech given in July of 2011 where she said, “The key to harmonious living between Christians and Muslims is to recognize religious freedom and human rights.”

However, one year later just before the Benghazi attack, Clinton said, “I want to applaud the Organization of Islamic Conference and the European Union for helping pass Resolution 1618 at the Human Rights Council. I was complimenting the secretary general on the OIC team in Geneva. I had a great team there as well…together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs…”

Sounds good, but speaking before Islamic nations, she is speaking about the US. “So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming,so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

Shoebat’s article goes more in-depth about the speech and the connection to the video. He describes, the meeting in Istanbul being “the precursor to a series of annual summits that would constitute “The Istanbul Process”. The first convened in Washington and was hosted by Clinton in December of 2011, at a time when a certain anti-Muhammad video was being produced.”

Walid Shoebat claims that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was a U.S. federal informant at the time of Clinton’s speech. “Based on the public statements of both Hillary and Obama’s envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, Nakoula would have made a perfect OIC agent as well because he represented a face of the public, not the government.”

In 2009, Nakoula pled guilty for his role in a bank fraud scheme. In return, he was to get a lesser sentence and help authorities catch the ringleader, Eiad Salameh who happens to be Shoebat’s cousin.

“Nakoula was an agent of Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department. In exchange for having one year taken off his sentence, Nakoula was supposed to help the feds catch Salameh.” Except according to Shoebat, this isn’t how Nakoula became an informant. He was arrested by LAPD on September 15th, 2012. In January of 2011 six months before Clinton’s speech Shoebat was contacted the Ontario Provincial Police in Peel County, Canada. He was told that Eiad Salameh was in their custody and that they attempted to hand Salameh over to the FBI for seven months. The FBI refused to take him, so he was sent back to Palestine by Canadian authorities.

Nakoula began casting for his video in July of 2011, which was the same time Canadian authorities stopped trying to hand over Shoebat’s cousin, and the same month as the speech.

Since the stated reason for his lighter sentence was not the real reason for it, Nakoula still had to do time, which he did after the Benghazi attacks. Three days after the Benghazi attacks, on the day the bodies of the Benghazi 4 came home, Clinton promised Charles Woods, Tyrone Woods’ father that, “We’re going to go out and we’re going to prosecute that person that made the video.”

Not long after, Clinton and Obama aired a TV commercial in Pakistan, in which they blamed the video and denounced it as hate speech and apologized for it.

More of the same rhetoric about how governments are limited in being able to prosecute free speech came from State Department employee Rashad Hussain earlier this year at the fourth annual “Istanbul Process” summit, held in Doha, Qatar. Hussain remarked, “Relying on governments to ban certain speech often ignores the root causes of bigotry, and many religious communities have found that improving education, interfaith dialogue, and media awareness are effective tools for combatting (sic) intolerance. The Istanbul Process that we are here participating in today is meant to promote implementation of those important measures.”

Shoebat lists the way which government, in particular, the US could manipulate the views of freedom of speech and make it “inflammatory” enough to, in Clinton’s words- shame people into censorship of anything negative about Islam.

Find someone who was beholden to the administration.
Create the perception that said individual was acting as a private citizen.
Have this private citizen produce something viewed as incendiary by the Muslim world.
Provide a platform for the production of this material to be delivered to the masses.
Point to this material as inflammatory and something people should “abhor”.

This fits Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who according to one who starred in the Innocence movie, professed to her twice that he is a Muslim- not a Christian as it was claimed by the media. Again, Shoebat’s website provides video of those claims.

It seems more than plausible that Clinton and Obama had something to do with the video, they certainly made it the primary focus after the attack in Benghazi, and as reported last month, an e-mail sent at 9:11 pm eastern time on September 11, 2012, (3:11 am September 12 in Libya) to the Diplomatic Security Command Center under the subject line ‘‘Update on response actions—Libya’’ discussed the ‘‘White House is reaching out to YouTube to advise ramifications of the posting of the Pastor Jon Video.’’

Hillary Clinton, the woman who wants the Presidency of the United States of America has worked with Islamic organizations with ties to America’s enemies and they are trying to make it illegal to participate in any speech that promotes discrimination and hostility toward “religion” knowing full well that religion means ideology, because in Islam, religion is the State and society.

Along with many still unanswered questions, both of these issues need to be fully investigated and questioned by the Select Committee. Four Americans are dead, and their families still want answers and the truth. Maybe if she is subpoenaed Hillary won’t be so flippant about having them “read the book.”

About the Author

Carolyn Elkins' PolitiChicks articles have been shared by Mark Levin, NewsBusters and New Media Journal. She writes about everything from military issues, the Middle East, Islam, politics to the Founding Fathers. Carolyn is a guest writer on The Right Scoop and PolitiBrew under the name American Duckie. Born in Canada, but now a proud U.S. citizen, Florida PolitiChick Carolyn is an unapologetic Christian and Constitutional Conservative. She studies the Founders and their writings, and uses what she learns to try and educate others. Carolyn is the founder of the Constitutional Freedom Party, a completely grass roots organization whose foundation is on God and the Founder's intent for a Constitutional Republic. Carolyn is married with one child and has taught American Government and Constitution to her home school co-op group of 12- 14 year olds. You can visit her via the Constitutional Freedom Party blog or on twitter @ABiCduckie and @CFP4US

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.